A solution to reduce gun violence

[WhiteFeather]

an oldie from canada

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/weinreb010406.htm

A solution to reduce gun violence

It seems that former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino is the only one in the public eye that understands what is happening on the streets of one of Canada's major cities that has seen a record 52 gun related murders take place in Toronto in 2005. While speaking to CTV News, Fantino said that guns were being used by a "hard-core (group) of young people who are pre-disposed to violence, afraid of nothing and accountable to no one."

If our politicians can actually see this, they disregard it for partisan political purposes. Toronto Mayor David Miller wrings his ideological hands and says that crime is a "complex issue". He and Prime Minister Paul Martin, who blamed Toronto's Boxing Day shootings on the fact that the bad guys have been "excluded", love to paint society's social ills as the root cause of the violence. And while they do that to further their socialist agenda of redistributing wealth, the shootings and the killings go on and on and on. They just love playing the "class" card to excuse what the little dears who are on the verge of taking complete control of the streets are doing. Meanwhile they are the elitists; they are the ones who practically ignored the violence and the killings until a 15-year-old, attractive, white star athlete was gunned down in a Boxing Day lineup. David "me me me" Miller spoke about how he had bought skates once on Boxing Day where Jane Creba was brutally murdered. It's not about Jane Creba; it's about him. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

There is no doubt that there is a correlation between poverty and crime. Young people, such as Jane Creba, who are raised by loving middle class parents, have no need or desire to run with street gangs. It's not difficult to understand why those who feel they have no hope turn to robbery, theft and drug dealing. It is also understandable why those who get involved in the criminal element feel the need to be armed; to prevent rip-offs and to defend themselves from other criminals. None of this is rocket science.

But it is difficult to make the leap that being poor or disadvantaged leads to young people firing guns in crowded shopping centres, on public transportation, next to daycare centres, where mothers who have finished work are picking up their toddlers, or on streets that are overflowing with holiday shoppers. The only way to end these types of crimes is to remove these potential offenders from society.

To begin with, all firearms prohibitions should be removed from the Criminal Code and judges should be prevented from imposing such terms as a condition of bail or probation. These restrictions do nothing more than give judges a false sense of security that the conditions will be complied with and society will be protected.

Sentences for gun crimes need to be increased, but not to the four years that is being bantered around now. Everyone who is convicted of possessing a firearm should receive a mandatory 10-year sentence. And those who use illegally use a firearm should be sentenced to life with no possibility of parole for 20 years. There is more chance that the Income Tax Act will be repealed that these types of laws will pass, but they would be effective. Okay, so let's go through all the arguments against imposing harsh sentences.

Rehabilitation — Lengthy sentences will take away the initiative that some accused might have to turn their lives around. They will eventually be released and be more hardened criminals. Answer: the protection of society in removing the gang bangers is more important than worrying about rehabilitation. It is difficult to see how anyone could be more "hardened" than those who fired in the crowd where 15-year-old Jane Creba lost her life.

Deterrence — Since becoming Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler, until he was directed otherwise, had always opposed minimum mandatory sentences because they do not act as a deterrent. And he was right. Lengthy mandatory sentences will neither deter the accused nor others. The only benefit would be to remove the bad guys from society so they can't do any more damage.

Running around in the type of gangs that are currently wreaking havoc on Toronto streets are restricted to those in their teens and 20s. While there are certainly criminal "gangs" such as motorcycle clubs and other organized criminal associations that have older members and that are armed and commit murders, you don't see older people firing guns anywhere they feel like it. The loss of innocent life is not unheard of, but groups of 30 and 40 year olds don't run downtown and fire guns in crowds. Those current gang members, whom Julian Fantino refers to as the hardcore, simply have to be removed from society until they get to an age where they are simply too burned out to run around the streets firing handguns.

Paul Martin was wrong when he blamed society because "exclusion" was the cause of violent gun crime. But exclusion does have its place. The young thugs should be excluded from society until such time as their threat to society is at least minimized

[zeister]

There is always this opinion that if only laws and sentences were stricter and sentences longer then society would be safer. It is a comforting position that seems logical but then it does not bear the test of history. Death sentences for petty offenses and flogging had no real effect on the crime rate. Giving lip service to correcting social conditions also has no effect. That notwithstanding, prevention is always better than reaction after the fact. Sentences are simply a reaction by society to it's own inability to prevent crime. We remove the fellon for a time but in more cases than not they return to society more dangerous than when they went into prison.

Gun bans have historically failed to provide greater personal security. Yet politicos continue to press more of a failed policy on us because they have neither the will nor the ability to correct societies problems. They seek a cheap, simple solution that they can pass off to the uninformed as action against crime.

In Canada this action manifests itself in the Firearms Act and the universal or long gun registry. The Act registers citizens on the basis that 'some' 'might' commit a crime in the future. The Act allows for confiscation of firearms by listing many as prohibited and contains unusual search and seizure provisions. This Act is a direct attack on private property and the historic right of Canadians to own firearms. The licensing is mandatory and is backed by the Criminal Code.

By enacting this Act, the former Liberal governments failed to exercise the prime mandate of a modern democracy. This is to protect and defend the personal rights and freedoms of Canadians. The excuse of using 'public safety' as a basis is bogus when it attacks those rights and freedoms government is there to protect. Just review the history of those states that have gone down this road and consider the disastrous consequences to the citizenry.

If the choice were mine I would choose for a safe society where opportunity did not depend on a weapon and choices existed beyond poverty and starvation. Until the 'just society' becomes a reality we will continue to see the rising trend in violent crime and the steady loss of personal freedoms and rights in the bogus pursuit of a safer society.

[Mr_Anderson]

Mandatory sentences might not be the answer but I much rather them come down hard on the criminals than the guns that the low life's use to commit the crimes.

[kevindsingleton]

That notwithstanding, prevention is always better than reaction after the fact.

How, pray tell, would government go about "preventing" crime, without violating Constitutionally-protected rights?

[zeister]

How, pray tell, would government go about "preventing" crime, without violating Constitutionally-protected rights?

It is easier in Canada for the three levels of government to provide for programs that help people directly. The main difference is we are not hung up on the word socialism. Socialism is not communism. This confusion seems rife in U.S. debates. Providing better housing, education opportunities, universal health care, and community activities for poor youth are all things that result in a safer society. All these options are supported by government and the general tax base. Yes, we have our problems but we believe the system we have is the right one for us. We make changes as required.

Your history is different from ours. We do not have a frontier mentality primarily because in our expansion westward law went before settlement and we avoided Indian wars through a treaty system that avoided conflict.

The only advice I would offer is to learn from the gun control failures in Canada, the U.K. and Australia. Avoid a national gun registry at all costs. They are a sinkhole of funding with no demonstrable advance in public safety.

[kevindsingleton]

It is easier in Canada for the three levels of government to provide for programs that help people directly. The main difference is we are not hung up on the word socialism. Socialism is not communism. This confusion seems rife in U.S. debates. Providing better housing, education opportunities, universal health care, and community activities for poor youth are all things that result in a safer society. All these options are supported by government and the general tax base. Yes, we have our problems but we believe the system we have is the right one for us. We make changes as required.

Socialism is the economic precursor to communism. I compare socialism to the influenza that leads to the fatal pneumonia of communism. The only reason you believe it to be working is because you believe it is the right system for you. Were you to change your mind about compulsorily subsidizing the failures and inadequacies of your fellows, you'd view socialism in a much different light.

It's not a matter of "confusion" that results in the US abhorring socialism. It's because our nation is constructed on a foundation of economic freedom and self-reliance.

I still like our bacon better.

[FormerUser123]

A solution to reduce gun violence

The solution to reduce gun violence is to reduce gun criminals.

[/dev/null]

Originally Posted by zeister View Post
That notwithstanding, prevention is always better than reaction after the fact.

Mandatory sentences might not be the answer but I much rather them come down hard on the criminals than the guns that the low life's use to commit the crimes.

Two words - "Minority Report". Great movie, but I don't think were quite there yet as a society.

[zeister]

Socialism is the economic precursor to communism. I compare socialism to the influenza that leads to the fatal pneumonia of communism. The only reason you believe it to be working is because you believe it is the right system for you. Were you to change your mind about compulsorily subsidizing the failures and inadequacies of your fellows, you'd view socialism in a much different light.

It's not a matter of "confusion" that results in the US abhorring socialism. It's because our nation is constructed on a foundation of economic freedom and self-reliance.

I still like our bacon better.

I'm a historian by trade and have studied your history at length. The history of socialism and communism are quite different. The socialist aspects of western democracies have not resulted in communism. I have lived in the Netherlands for a number of years and although they have a strong social safety net they also are a fiercely individualist and independent people. They have perhaps ten national parties covering the full spectrum from far right to far left but 95% or more of the votes go to the left and right parties at the centre. The religious right is strong there as well. A healthy democracy can accommodate a wide range of opinion and govern without becoming fascist or communist. I would never suggest to you that your system does not meet your needs. As they say we can be friends but a marriage would never work. What I do find interesting is the concept of economic freedom and self-reliance. We have those to the measure that we want them. As a modern democracy we share certain 'socialist' institutions with other western democracies. We generally don't wear our religion on our sleeve but we do practice as a society that we are our brother's keeper. Our system strives to protect the weak and give opportunity to those willing to work for it. Perhaps the end is the same but we have chosen a different road to tread. I have American family and respect their values but their philosophy is not mine. Both sides accept that and that is how it should be.

If you like bacon then you must try Canadian back bacon with maple syrup and buckwheat pancakes topped off with some Tim Hortons coffee [now available in the U.S.]! I am told it is stronger than American brews but then coffee snobbery is one of my weaknesses.

[kevindsingleton]

the Netherlands for a number of years and although they have a strong social safety net they also are a fiercely individualist and independent people.

I'm no historian, but I'd say those two statements are about as mutually exclusive as you can get. It's easy to be "fiercely individualist" if there's no risk of failure.

They have perhaps ten national parties covering the full spectrum from far right to far left but 95% or more of the votes go to the left and right parties at the centre. The religious right is strong there as well. A healthy democracy can accommodate a wide range of opinion and govern without becoming fascist or communist.

That may be true, but you're talking small-scale, in a homogenous society. We don't "enjoy" that, here. I could probably make socialism work in my household, too.

I would never suggest to you that your system does not meet your needs. As they say we can be friends but a marriage would never work.

As they say, nobody proposed marriage. I did suggest that socialism is a precursor to communism. One is typically built upon the ruins of the other.

What I do find interesting is the concept of economic freedom and self-reliance. We have those to the measure that we want them.

Good for you. We're relinquishing them at a pace we never anticipated. Indeed, we're almost at your level of economic servitude, and will likely pass you within the next few presidential administrations.

As a modern democracy we share certain 'socialist' institutions with other western democracies. We generally don't wear our religion on our sleeve but we do practice as a society that we are our brother's keeper.

As long as it's not compulsory, I'm right there with you. When you start compelling others to participate, against their will, then I'm wholeheartedly against it. We call that "European socialism". Also, "economic slavery".

Our system strives to protect the weak and give opportunity to those willing to work for it. Perhaps the end is the same but we have chosen a different road to tread. I have American family and respect their values but their philosophy is not mine. Both sides accept that and that is how it should be.

Our system strives to reward the smart, the dedicated, and the entreprenurial. We adopted a Constitution to preclude having our system "give opportunity", but we've slipped so far away from it that you can't even tell, any more.

If you like bacon then you must try Canadian back bacon with maple syrup and buckwheat pancakes topped off with some Tim Hortons coffee [now available in the U.S.]! I am told it is stronger than American brews but then coffee snobbery is one of my weaknesses.

I like back bacon, but I still prefer smoked American bacon. I'll raise a cup of coffee, to you, though. I get mine from Hawaii, Kenya and Guatemala, but if we can come together over good coffee, then we can be friends. The wedding is still right out, though!